Have you noticed the deafening silence of the past twelve months? The silence of the CIA/US Intelligence Community, the silence of the White House and the silence of the western media that dutifully reports, but never questions, all that it is handed down to them by those sources.

Of the mountains of evidence, the enormous evidence, referred to by John Kerry below we can say, either the US had it or they hadn’t. If they had it, it’s impossible to understand why almost a year after the event it has still not been published, or at least that some explanation be given for the failure to do so. They’re fast enough, over-fast often, with their spurious evidence of Russian invasions and military in the Ukraine.

If they didn’t have it,and I mean hard, indisputable, knock-down evidence, then the politicians and mainstream media of the west were guilty of the most egregiously offensive exploitation of the tragedy for propaganda purposes even before the all the remains of the 298 innocent victims had been recovered from the fields around Hrabove.

On 22/7/14 just five days after the crash and before any investigation had been carried out, the White House released a report on the incident which relied heavily on claims being made on social media and briefings from notoriously untrustworthy Kiev sources. Based solely upon that report the President and other representatives of the White House made the allegations that generated the flood of anti-Russian, anti-Putin propaganda, abuse and condemnation that the western media poured out in the following days in papers, on TV and on radio.

Yet since that date, now almost a year ago, the CIA/US Intelligence Community has not publicly updated its assessment on this incident, a critical turning point in the Ukraine crisis and international relations.

This is the USA which operates the most sophisticated system of spy satellites, electronic surveillance, intelligence intercepts and radar tracking in the world. It can read your car’s number plate from space, it can read your emails, it probably knows what you had for breakfast. Yet from all the surveillance data it would have held of an area of extreme international tension and sensitivity, the White House and the CIA has chosen not to place one piece of its own hard intelligence in the public domain to support their initial allegations.

Isn’t it remarkable? Readouts from the black boxes of Germanwings Flight 4U9525 were made public within three days of the crash, yet for MH17 it took almost eight months, and CIA still refuse to release any of their data or their updated report.

On 21/7/14, just four days after the incident, at a public briefing the Russian Ministry of Defence placed all of its radar tracking, intelligence intercepts and surveillance information relating to the incident in the public domain. Both the briefing and the intelligence made available were largely ignored by the whole of the western media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWD5F_liigw

10 questions were then put to the Kiev authorities (see below) all of them relevant and all of them unanswered and ignored in the west.

It is inconceivable that in an area of such extreme sensitivity the US would not hold intelligence of a quality equal to or exceeding that of Russia, and if that intelligence completely vindicated the initial allegations wouldn’t Kerry once again be doing the rounds of every TV studio in the mainstream media to trumpet the fact to the world?

What then should one conclude?? Is it really taking Washington that long to fix a story that will not embarrass their placemen in Kiev?

Timeline and a few relevant facts that the western media Has, by and large, chosen to ignore

For an explanation of the references marked ### see the end of this post.

Thursday 17/7 MH 17 departed Schiphol airport at noon. It was downed approximately two hours later. Within hours of the event the Ukrainian President ruled out any suggestion that it might have been an accident and called it an act of terrorism.

The US Papers, because of time zones differences were able to publish on the same day Wall Street Journal ‘US intelligence officials have already concluded that it was hit by a STA missile of uncertain provenance.’ New York Times ‘Blown out of the sky by what Ukrainian and American officials described as a Russian-made antiaircraft missile.’ They omit to point out that the military forces of the new Kiev administration have themselves nothing but Russian-made surface to air missiles. Los Angeles Times ‘US intelligence confirms it was STA missile. Not clear who fired it’ New York Daily News ‘MH17 shot down . . . both Ukrainian President and pro-Russian rebels deny involvement.’ New York Post ‘A Russian-made STS missile** blew the jet out of the sky said top official’ So far then all relatively restrained and non-committal.

And then leading the media pack came that bastion of balanced and impartial reporting the BBC with its flagship programme Newsnight just eight hours after the downing trotting out as their ‘expert’ Sir Anthony Russell “Tony” Brenton KCMG a former British diplomat who served as ambassador to Russia from 2004-2008. As to the value of his ‘expertise’ see “The Value of an ‘Expert’ Opinion” in Post C. He begins . . . ‘The assumption has to be**, it may well turn out not to be true,’……….and yet he goes blundering on with every subsequent comment predicated on the assumption that it is true, that it was ‘the Ukrainian rebels’ – and not once does his interviewer challenge him or suggest that it might be better to wait for the results of the investigation.

**In Brenton’s opinion it has to be the Pro-Russian separatists who are responsible of course, but with his final words he even raises the possibility that the missile might perhaps have come from the Russian side of the border. Such men are not merely incompetent, they’re bloody dangerous. And he was our man in Moscow for God’s sake. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcqSYAeFyZA

For a further indication of the worthlessness of this ‘expert’s’ views on the Russo/Ukrainian situation listen to his blatherings in the longer Newsnight recording from 10 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUl8R6HjNO4

“The evidence is accumulating* that their (the Russians) clients in eastern Ukraine were responsible for this . . . . if the Russian are wise, and on the whole they are quite shrewd about this stuff, they will now work quite hard to distance themselves from the separatists in eastern Ukraine# . . . . and they will continue the process, which has already been under way, of gradually letting those separatists go and let the Ukrainians re-occupy the east#. . . . . they (the Russians) have actually pulled quite a long way back they were at one point poised to invade and fight a war** in the E Ukraine. Since then they have let the Ukrainian army gain traction and space in the area#, and the product of this tragic event is I suspect that the Russians will feel constrained to move further in that direction.#”

* What evidence would Brenton be likely to have in his possession just 8 hours after the crash and well before Washington has spoken. He provides nothing specific and as with those ludicrous White House press briefings we just have to take his word – the word of an ‘expert’. **When exactly would that have been and what evidence is there – as ever he provides none. # Wrong, wrong, wrong – as that diffident chap Richard Dawkins responded to an equally asinine proposition. What about all those Russian ‘invasions’ that took place after 18/7/2014? See Post H. What about the Russian Duma’s proposal 25/3/2015 to re-authorise Putin to send the army into Donbass should Obama heed the call of US lawmakers to arm Kiev?

The man’s knowledge, judgment and integrity all seem to be equally worthless.

Meanwhile over on CNN John McCain ‘doesn’t want to leap to any conclusions’ but decides nevertheless to slip a blatant lie down the leg-side (sadly that’s the nature of the man) by alleging that the Ukrainians do not have the very sophisticated weapons system (ie BUKs) that would be required to have downed MH17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V53xoum3AM

Friday 18/7 Obama speaks: Now, here is what we know so far. Evidence# indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile** that was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine. He repeats: What we know right now, what we have confidence in saying right now is that a surface-to-air missile** was fired, and that’s what brought the jet down. We know — we have confidence in saying that that shot was taken within a territory that is controlled by the Russian separatists. And then he has the neck to say: But I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we don’t get out ahead of the facts. And at this point, in terms of identifying specifically what individual or group of individuals or, you know, personnel ordered the — the strike, how it came about, those are things that I think are still going to be subject to additional information#that we’re going to be gathering. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/18/statement-president-ukrain#And for that evidence and additional information we are still waiting..

US Ambassador Power at UN: We assess MH17 was likely downed by a surface-to-air missile**, an SA-11, operated from a separatist-held location in eastern Ukraine. No forensic evidence was produced either by her or Obama ## She did though admit that the Ukrainian’s had SA-11 systems in their inventory – a fact which most of the press conveniently forgot to mention.

## Something on which Ms Psaki was pressed at the White House briefing: Question: ‘We assess that it was fired – where is the data – where is the evidence that backs that up? Ms Psaki: There isn’t additional data that we are providing at this point – we will provide that through the investigation process Question: But do you understand how there are people who are sceptical of what she said, especially given previous UN presentations by Americans. Understandably sceptical, and yet still that additional data hasn’t been forthcoming. But the media had been given their first nudge on the direction they were to follow. They dutifully obliged and the propaganda floodgates opened.

The Sun: ‘Putin’s Missile’ Daily Express ‘MH 17 shot down by missile** suspected to have been fired by Russian separatists’ Daily Mirror Posting photos of some of those who died: “Putin’s Victims” Daily Mail ‘Immediate suspicion focused on pro-Moscow insurgents using a Buk surface- to air- missile** supplied by Russia**’ and “Putin’s Killed My Son” Daily Star ‘Russian terror missile** kills 295’ Daily Telegraph ‘Pro-Russian separatists blamed for killing 295 on Malaysian jet.’ Guardian ‘The President of the Ukraine last night accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the jet’ Evening Standard ‘The most widely held theory is that Russian militia blew the aircraft out of the sky.’ Wall Street Journal‘ The US said the plane was likely downed by a STA missile** from rebel held territory’ New York Times ‘The United States government has concluded that the passenger jet felled over Ukraine was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile** launched from rebel-held territory and most likely provided by Russia to pro-Moscow separatists, officials said on Friday.’ **But not one of them suggests that it might be wise to await the outcome of an investigation (the word of the White House is enough) or sees fit to mention the fact made explicit by Ambassador Power and denied by McCain that such Russian-made missiles were extensively supplied to and held by Kiev forces.

Saturday 19/7 – the assault continues Daily Express ‘Putin’s Rebels Blew Up Plane’ Daily Telegraph ‘Russian gangsters killed our loved ones.’ Independent ‘The finger points at Putin . . . as evidence mounted.’ What evidence would that be?Guardian ‘Cover-up: Rebels Destroy all links to MH17 atrocity’ A blatant Lie, but the implication is:They did it. The Times ‘MH 17 lost after rebels shoot down wrong jet.’ The confused reference to the rebels shooting down the wrong jet is interesting in the light of what follows. Sunday 20/7 John Kerry did his Sunday morning walkabout of the US talk shows. He talked of mountains of evidence . . . ‘Enormous evidence, even more evidence than I have documented.’ Almost no one in the mainstream asks the simplest and most obvious of questions: motive, means and opportunity. What about the Ukrainian military who have form when it comes to shooting down commercial airliners? (Siberian airlines flight 1812 on 4/10/2001 – initially denied, later admitted and compensation paid). “We know, we know, we know” is the constant refrain from Kerry, and yet beyond his constant references to ‘social media’ (just count how many times he resorts to this) to video and radio intercepts (all of which have since been comprehensively exposed as being worthless) he produces no evidence for any of his allegations, nor has any been subsequently produced.

There were many good reasons for treating all that Washington said with scepticism. In the sixty years since the end of WW2 the United State of America have engaged in the following acts of criminal or near-criminal behaviour:Subversion and criminal interventions abroad*** assassination of foreign leaders either directly or via intermediaries*** established schools teaching interrogation and torture techniques*** initiated and funded sedition abroad*** instigated coup d’etats to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies*** installed, funded and armed fascist dictators*** employed ‘false flag’ operations to justify foreign invasions*** used covert agents to manipulate NGOs and Human Rights organisation*** spied on the leaders of other nations and its own citizens*** employed torture, murdered and committed atrocities in its military prisons*** committed crimes against humanity in its military operations abroad*** targeted, smeared and used black propaganda against any voices departing from the White House party line*** indirectly controlled the media to spread propaganda, misinformation and lies*** created secret prisons – the ‘black sites’ of special rendition where torture was outsourced***Its Presidents and High Officers of State routinely lie to their citizens and the world on matters of existential (such a popular word on the Russian issue) importance.

Unlike America’s allegations regarding MH17, there is overwhelming evidence for this, it is documented and beyond debate. For fuller details see Post A.

That poses two questions. Why on earth should we give even a crumb of credibility to any statement, pronouncement or allegation that has its source in the USA without giving it the most rigorous examination and demanding the most convincing of proofs? The logical answer is that we shouldn’t. Why in the face of such overwhelming evidence of America’s mendacity and criminal behaviour, of which any half-competent journalist should be aware, has the western media, by and large, followed the expected lead of the corporate-owned American media in accepting and propagating the narrative as presented by the State Department without detailed and critical examination? The answer would seem to be that the media home and abroad does what its master expect of it.

Why this persistent amnesia when it comes to the country described by Martin Luther King as ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today?’

When these notes were first being put together it was generally accepted on all the sides that MH17 had been downed by a surface to-air-missile. More recent evidence (see below) has led some qualified observers to argue that the weapon used was in fact an air-to-air missile. Certainly it is the case that to date not a scrap of hard evidence (I mean evidence as opposed to allegation and innuendo) has been produced to show that it was a BUK missile, or who was responsible and whether the downing was by accident or design.

When John Kerry made his round of Sunday morning chat shows he referred to ‘a mountain of evidence’ linking Russia to the downing. Well they had a mountain of evidence on the Iraqi WMDs too and as we now know they made it up.

From the early pronouncements of the US State Department it was clear that they were using nothing more than social media as their primary evidence: no photographs, no reconnaissance, no physical evidence, no hard data. It’s worth noting too, that despite all the recriminations about early access for international inspectors to the scene of the crash, neither the black boxes nor the flight cabin recorder were ever likely to provide evidence about responsibility, and if any traces of the missile were found it would be Russian, as supplied to and operated by Kiev forces.

Even if John Kerry was lying when he claimed that the US had detected the missile launch and strike, one thing that is certain is that the Americans have extraordinarily good signals intelligence. They are spying on the entire world with satellites that can resolve detail down to the make and model of a car hundreds of miles below. It defies belief that they did not have spy satellites in operation over the area where the events occurred, that they did not have over-the-horizon radar watching what was going on, that they did not have intense intelligence intercept operations going on in a region that was of so much interest to them.

The NATO Sea Breeze 2014 naval exercises that take place annually in the Black Sea and include US military forces were running for ten days up to and including the 17th July when the downing occurred. It included 200 US military specialists and engaged in electronic warfare exercises and the monitoring of all commercial traffic in the region

Are we supposed to believe that with all of those NATO forces including all the surveillance that goes along with such exercises not one of them picked up the data on the flight, not one of them was aware of what was going on in the skies above them?

If the US has such a mountain of evidence and it is in their favour, wouldn’t it be running day and night on every corporate news channel throughout the States?

In his Sunday morning round Kerry also appeared to include as would-be evidence three tapes leaked by the Kiev regime, demonstrated within a week to be frauds or fakes, and which when examined are mutually contradictory. The first one argued that the so-called BUK battery was based in Debaltzevo. The second tape put the battery in Donetsk, and then the video with the battery and one missile missing was supposedly in Snezhnoe. Now all the evidence points to the battery as being a Ukrainian battery.

In fact the only hard evidence that has been produced on the incident to date comes from the briefing given by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 21 July when it placed all of its radar tracking, intelligence intercepts and surveillance information in the public domain. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWD5F_liigw An interpreter provides translations.

The briefing was almost completely ignored or dismissed by western leaders and media, and very like the response to Paet’s information on the false flag###elements of the Maidan snipers (see Post E) the first reaction was a deafening silence. They don’t challenge it or refute it, they just dismiss it. It’s Russian of course, has to be a fake. Can’t possibly be a credible source.

And if you want to see US State Department obfuscation, bewilderment and incoherence at their very best have a browse through the responses of Marie Harf* to some fairly gentle pressure in the questioning at the White House briefing given in response to the Russian briefing: the constant references to social media, to a preponderance of evidence out there in the public domain, to an assessment made on a very broad range of information (never specified), to intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian Government (referred to above). *http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ This gives a link to all the White House briefings. Harf and Psaki are a White House equivalent of the BBC’s Gert and Daisy and just about as reliable – you’ll have to be of a certain age for that to mean anything. For the best of Ms Harf in glorious White House ‘full spectrum’ colour and bland inchoherence see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc7muGCcrJ8&feature=iv&src_vid=-V53xoum3AM&annotation_id=annotation_2713024335

Harf is asked specifically if they have anything other than social media stuff, and replies ‘Yes, absolutely there is,’ but when asked to say what it is retreats into yet more waffle. She refers to ‘a host of information’ but somehow none of it is ever specified and all she can refer to is ‘assessments based on a variety of intelligence and a variety of information’, and return constantly to the gossip gleaned from the internet. Sometimes we can’t get into all the specifics, she says, having gone one better and got into none of them. And having said absolutely bugger all of value she finally comes out with the following gem: ‘I would also say that these aren’t competing narratives from two equally credible sources here. The Russian Government has repeatedly put out misinformation and propaganda throughout this conflict in Ukraine, so I would caution you from saying that this is just two equally credible sources.’

The US putting out misinformation, propaganda and not a credible source? Perish the thought (and forget the Iraq deceptions). It’s almost as vile as suggesting that they ‘might invade a country on completely phony pretexts just to assert their own interests.’ When asked if she is saying that the US is more credible than the Russians she ‘refuses to dignify that question with a response.’ So what we are getting is in effect no more than, ’Trust us.’ Really? Trust the USA? You’ll find several pages of good reasons why we should not do that in Post A at “The USA – A Centre of Infection.”

And then Harf begins the retreat. ‘Look, I think it still remains to be seen, right, how the pro-Russian separatists got whatever – the SA-11, the specific one – I’m not assigning culpability there.’ But when asked whether her comments meant that the hard evidence justifying this assertion would be made public, Harf is distinctly equivocal. ‘I said that we endeavour to make as much public as we can.’

It would appear though from the briefing that at one stage in Kerry’s Sunday morning round he was more specific and said: ‘We ourselves tracked the imagery of the launch of this surface-to-air missile. We have the trajectory recorded. We have the intercepts of their conversations. We know this from voice identification. We have a video.’The White House apparently holds all this evidence – knock down evidence if it were true – and yet it hugs it to its bosom and refuses to share it with us. Pull the other one do. For all of the above see: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm

So what we have here is US rhetoric and innuendo presented against hard data, and we are supposed simply to accept their word on it.

24/7/14 Harf gave another fine display. See: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229752.htm#UKRAINE “I do have a couple of new pieces of information about arms continuing to flow across the border since the shoot-down. We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful, multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions. This is just some pieces of info I’ve been able to get from our intelligence friends for you. I can’t tell you what the information is based on. I know that’s disappointing to you Matt.’ Bloody disappointing for us too, but we know we can take it on trust don’t we. I won’t offer any comments. It’s given a thoroughly forensic going-over at: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/24/us-state-department-tells-lies-justify-war/

Questions Kiev has so far declined to answer Following their public briefing on 21 July and in the light of what they found, the Russian Defence Ministry put the following questions to the Kiev authorities. 1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defence forces. What are these accusations based on? http://rt.com/news/173964-ukraine-malaysia-intercepted-calls/2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses BUK missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, as the separatist forces do not themselves have any planes? http://rt.com/news/173784-ukraine-plane-malaysian-russia/ and http://rt.com/news/173636-buk-malaysian-plane-crash/ 3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work? http://rt.com/news/173972-churkin-malaysia-plane-un/4.Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers? 5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy? 6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?http://rt.com/news/173792-malaysian-plane-diverted-warzone/7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems? http://rt.com/news/173652-fights-avoid-ukrain-malaysian/8. Can we have an official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in the Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory? 9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators? 10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty? http://rt.com/news/173680-passenger-planes-shot-down/

In view of the hard data disclosed in the Russian briefing they all seem very reasonable questions, or do the White House/Kiev administrations feel that the incident was not serious enough to warrant examination of such specific detail? Whatever the reason none of the questions have been answered.

12/8/14 The Independent published a piece by Sergei Stepashin, a former Russian PM, which covers much of the ground that my ‘dossier’ covers, but not half as thoroughly – though I say it myself. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dear-mr-cameron-us-and-eu-politicians-had-been-drumming-up-the-conflict-in-ukraine-9664707.htmlPosition at 3/9/2014 Forensic evidence other than that released by the Russian military briefing is still not available. As yet no full publication of black box data (held in London). No release by of exchanges between pilot and Kiev air traffic control which is part of date on black boxes. Within a week Russia had published all the data it had – no accusations – just ask all other parties to do the same and compare.

20 Nov 2014 The Dutch government has refused to reveal details of a secret pact between members of the Joint Investigation Team examining the downed Flight MH17. If the participants, including Ukraine, don’t want information to be released, it will be kept secret. The respected Dutch publication Elsevier made a request to the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) agreement, along with 16 other documents. The JIT consists of four countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine– who are carrying out an investigation into the MH17 disaster, but not Malaysia. Malaysian Airlines, who operated the flight, has been criticized for flying through a war zone. Part of the agreement between the four countries and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, ensures that all these parties have the right to secrecy. This means that if any of the countries involved believe that some of the evidence may be damagingto them, they have the right to keep this secret.

It begins to look as though the main concern of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice is that of saving face among members of the investigation rather than giving the public a little insight into the progress of the investigation. ‘I believe that this interest (international relations) is of greater importance than making the information public, as it is a unique investigation into an extremely serious event,’ the Ministry added according to Elsevier.

This is all very convenient for Kiev of course. But what possible justification can there be for offering such an agreement to Ukraine which is one of the two suspected parties. Such an incredible betrayal of public trust in the integrity of the investigation, and yet as far as I could trace there was not one reference to this in the mainstream media.

5/3/15 RT’s Reflections on MH17 http://rt.com/shows/documentary/223071-mh17-plane-crash-investigation/is particularly interesting from 6.30 onwards as regards 1. The absence on or around the scene of any fragments of a BUK missile. Even a small-sized terrorist bomb leaves debris and fragments that can be subject to useful forensic analysis. The BUK weights 710 kg, is 5.5 m long and has a sizeable engine, and yet not a trace has apparently been found. 2. The vapour trail from the engine is substantial and conspicuous** and yet nobody reported it and no surveillance system has come up with any sighting of it. In brief there is not a single bit of evidence that it was an anti-aircraft missile – just allegations. 3. Reports from on the spot locals of military planes in the vicinity at the time that went unregarded. Returned to from 14 onwards when some evidence pointing to a hit from a military fighter is considered. 4. Reports from the locals that they were surprised to see a commercial airliner so far from the usual routes. See also: https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/mh17-latest-analysis/** A couple of BUK launches and the trails left can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXMhaFntrUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xem3hZkg and as YouTube videos show cameras were turned to the crash site within moments of the crash, and yet although the world and his wife now carries a camera not one apparently thought it worthwhile to pan round to show the trail of the missile that had committed the atrocity.

1-10/6/15 Russian manufacturers of the BUK missile system release the report of their own investigation concluding that if the plane had been downed by a BUK missile their analysis of the damage inflicted meant that it could only have been from an out-of-date model not in production since 1999 and now held only in the inventory of the Ukrainian forces. They did not however exclude the possibility that the plane could have been hit by some other type of weapon such as an air-to-air missile. http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

Evgeni Agapov an aviation armaments mechanic who was working with the first squadron of the Ukrainian Air Force’s tactical brigade at the time of the incident left his home and work in the Ukraine and crossed the border into Russia wishing to provide evidence concerning the incident to the Russian investigating committee.

A remarkable correspondence now exists between the evidence of Agapoy, and that of Kolomoysky (then Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast bordering on the separatist Donetsk region) whose activities are referred to in more detail in Post E, but whose videoed comment on MH17 in October 2014 is worth a second reference here. See https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/drunken-kolomoysky-admits-he-did-it-accidently/ In the course of the exchange he too says that MH17 was shot down by mistake – another plane, Putin’s, being the intended target.

Full reports on both developments have been sent to the Joint Investigating Team in the Netherlands who reportedly show astonishingly little interest in either, or in the evidence of other witnesses whose testimony appears to support the Agapov evidence. The same lack of interest has been shown by the mainstream media of the west: brief mentions of the Agapov evidence in the Mail Online, and of the BUK report in the BBC, Guardian online and the Telegraph, but little else that I could trace. That generally seems to be the way of things: if you don’t like the message don’t bother to engage with it. Just ignore it and carry on plugging the White House line.

And still the USA offers none of that ‘mountain of evidence’ to which John Kerry referred.

### Regarding the ‘false flag’ concept it is worth pointing out that in 1962 when the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were looking for “pretexts which they consider would justify US military intervention in Cuba,” they envisaged (amongst many other nefarious proposals) just such an operation as MH17 would be should it prove to be false flag. In fact the whole paper (originally Top Secret but now declassified) is well worth a read as a text book or working manual for duplicitous and criminal operations on which the US has relied with some success on numerous occasions. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

And if that hard, indisputable, knock-down evidence of responsibility for the outrage is never provided, can it be assumed that the apologies for the lies and libels of those headlines will be as fulsome and grovelling as the propagandising and exploitation of the tragedy was egregiously offensive and inexcusable?

17/7/15 The anniversary of the tragedy and acres of coverage of the few certain facts that are known plus much speculation, innuendo and Russophobic propaganda and yet not one sector of the mainstream western media to be found calling for America to make public the evidence that would apparently resolve all doubts as to responsibility. This is John Kerry speaking a year ago 20/7/14 in a morning interview on CNN. ‘We know because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shoot-down we detected a launch from that area and our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r1qAHUVwY From 1.15 20/7/14 in an interview on CBS Face the Nation. ‘We know from our own imagery, we see that an SA11, which is what we have assessed this to be. The type of surface to air missile which because of the altitude, the plane was at 33,000 feet . . . . . there’s an enormous amount of evidence, even more evidence than I have just documented.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1FSd5jKE From 1.10 This is Kerry a few days ago 16/7/15 ‘We support the work being done by the Joint Investigative Team and the Dutch Safety Board, for that reason, and we urge full cooperation by all in assisting their effort to uncover the full truth.’ http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/07/245000.htm

So according to Kerry the US has the imagery, they detected the launch and their trajectory showed that it went to the plane. A year later Kerry is urging full cooperation by all, and yet not one voice has been raised in the mainstream media calling for the US to put its surveillance information and radar tracking information in the public domain, as did the Russians, or make it available to the Joint Investigation Team.

Doesn’t that seem strange, and wouldn’t the US be rushing to do so if they did in fact hold the evidence referred to by Kerry? Or is it possible that Kerry, like so many American officials in the past, was deceiving his American public and the world? Tried a letter detailing the above facts to several of our leading newspapers. Not published of course – wouldn’t do to expose US hypocrisy on this and foreign affairs generally.

29/7/15 UN Security Council resolution calls for an international tribunal on MH17 Purely a theatrical political propaganda exercise of course and as clumsily constructed as these US led ventures usually are. Making the most of her platform, the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said that by vetoing the resolution Russia had attempted to deny justice to the victims and their families. At the same time as this little charade is being played out Wim De Bruin head of the JIT says that the team is currently investigating two scenarios: Whether MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile launched from somewhere in eastern Ukraine OR Whether MH17 was shot down by a jet fighter with an air to air missile. Why still investigating after twelve months? According to John Kerry the US holds definitive evidence that would resolve the matter (see 17/7/15 above). Whether or not Kerry was lying when he made that claim a year ago we do know that US intelligence gathering activities are probably the best on earth and yet the US still refuses to publish a full intelligence community assessment of the incident. The reasons why such critically important material should be made available at a time of increasing international tension seem obvious enough, but are perhaps best presented by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired American intelligence analysts who of all people are probably the best placed to assess the value of such material or perhaps speculate on the reason why it was not made available long ago. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/22/obama-should-release-mh-17-intel/

So who then is denying justice to the relatives of the 298 victims of the tragedy? Doesn’t the answer have to be the US government, and doesn’t that expose this little UN farce for what it is, just another example of American hypocrisy? We are told by the Guardian that Julie Bishop savaged Russia for vetoing UN tribunal proposal. ‘If Russia has nothing to hide, it should not have vetoed the resolution,’ she said. And should we not add ‘If America has nothing to hide,’ i.e. the involvement of its Kiev proxies, ‘it should be publishing its intelligence analysis in full as the Russians did immediately after the event.’